$1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed as Ineffective Junk Science

http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/1-billion-dollar-tsa-behavioral-screening-program-slammed-as-ineffective-junk-science-150323?news=856031

by alexcasalboni • 11 years ago

114 49 11 years ago

allgov.com

joelrunyon• 11 years ago

I thought this was common knowledge for a while now.

chanux• 11 years ago

Gov takes some time.

shit_parade• 11 years ago

And the people who defend gov even longer.

adrianhoward2• 11 years ago

I'm just glad that I seem to have passed through whatever set of factors that caused me to be "randomly" selected every time I entered the US for years on end.

chrisBob• 11 years ago

Do you usually dress the same, and go through the full body scanners? My wife was upset that she got patted down every time at logan, and then she looked at the display and found out that the TSA didn't like the buttons on the hoodie she liked to fly in. Now she just wears the grey one instead of the red one and flies through every time.

adrianhoward2• 11 years ago

This happened pre-TSA and pre-body scanners too.

Literally every time I went UK->US 1996 to 2010 I got "randomly" selected by some/all of immigration, security, and customs. I can only assume I looked/behaved dodgy in some way, was on some kind of list, or was just darn unlucky!

Incidents within the EU. Zero.

I've only just got the point where I've stopped scheduling a couple of extra hours of security-slack into my travel schedule ;-)

nhayden• 11 years ago

You can opt out and this won't be a problem. Tell them you can't lift your arms over your head and they won't even pat you down.

hn_user22• 11 years ago

Not arguing that it effective, as I haven't done any research on this, but the article does little to show that it is ineffective or that it is "Junk Science".

Not a big fan of TSA, so I can reasonably believe that they screwed up, but would like to see at least a little more data if they are going to pull the "Junk Science" card.

nmc3• 11 years ago

From the ACLU⁰:

"Both Congress’ Government Accountability Office¹ and an independent scientific advisory group² found that there is no evidence that people can identify deception by observing the behavior of others."

Claiming the opposite without showing any proof, like the TSA is doing, looks disturbingly like "junk science" to me.

0: https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-sues-tsa-records...

1: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-159

2: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100526/pdf/465412a.pdf

hn_user22• 11 years ago

Those are great sources, and the quote you cite is great. I totally believe everything you quoted and sourced.

I still stand by my criticism of the linked to article, of which that quote was not a part.

I think this is great stuff to bring to light.

res0nat0r2• 11 years ago

Maybe the TSA screening is junk due to lack of training or proper implementation, but behavioural observation is hardly junk science, Israel does exactly this and has one of the safest airports in the world due to their security screening processes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/what-israeli-air...

Shivetya• 11 years ago

Sadly there isn't one good site running with this story so I am not sure how we get the facts in the case. It seems the one problem standing in the way of getting the facts is the TSA itself; an agency whose screeners may soon be armed

nmc3• 11 years ago

From ACLU⁰ staff attorney:

"The TSA has insisted on keeping documents about SPOT secret"

The problem here seems to be exactly that we do not "get the facts".

The ACLU seems to have an idea of "how we get the facts", which is why they are suing. From the same page:

"[This] Freedom of Information Act lawsuit is seeking records related to any scientific basis for the program, its effectiveness, and how much minorities are disproportionately singled out."

0: https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-sues-tsa-records...

briandear• 11 years ago

Armed screeners? That's ridiculous. I don't hear too many stories of shoot outs at the airport. The last thing we need is to turn TSA screeners into a police force. Customs agents are often armed, but they are trained law enforcement as opposed to the misfits making $10 per how searching for smuggled barbecue sauce in a carry on.

josefresco2• 11 years ago

What about machetes and Molotov cocktails?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/21/new-orl...

I don't think the TSA agents should be armed, but I'm sure everyone (even the TSA agents) were happy deputy Slyve was.

DanBC• 11 years ago

I don't hear too many stories of shoot outs at the airport.

Perhaps because they're security conscious zones and often have heavily armed officers present?

joshbuddy• 11 years ago

Shootouts seem rare, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Los_Angeles_International...

otakucode3• 11 years ago

How many facts do we really need?

Number of terrorist attacks attempted: 0

Number of terrorist attacks prevented: 0

Number of 'suspected terrorists' screened by TSA: More than 0, with great probability they pick out more than 0 every single day at every single airport.

Trying to stop terrorist attacks (at least in the US) is akin to trying to prevent a lottery winning. The statistics just don't work.

fijal3• 11 years ago

So this is codified racial-profiling and intuition-profiling (that singles out people with dreadlocks, arabs, sick people, stressed people etc.) unlike all other un-codified profiling employed by virtually all agents of all border security things all over the planet. If you don't believe me, try flying visually sick and you'll be questioned over and over again (not about being sick or having ebola, mind you).

Swizec• 11 years ago

That's why whenever I'm crossing the US border I put on a button-up shirt and some nice shoes. Coupled with a EU passport, the effect is marvelous. When I'm going for anything under two months, they let me through with as little as a 30 second conversation.

(it also helps that I've got a business visa that says I can stay for 6months at a time)

fijal3• 11 years ago

Remember to US border officer EU passport is not a thing (Polish vs English or German for example). Either way they should totally run a rent-a-suit shop on the border ;-)

pyrophane• 11 years ago

Yes, exactly. It makes the criteria for singling out someone subjective and impossible to verify, so it empowers TSA to target whoever they please without any real fear of being held accountable for it.

fijal3• 11 years ago

You missed my point. All officers around the world already employ criteria that are subjective and impossible to verify, TSA went one step ahead and actually admitted it. Did you cross any international borders recently? While holding e.g. Iranian passport?

arafa• 11 years ago

SPOT is based on the Facial Action Coding System (FACS), a method developed by Paul Ekman to read faces (familiar to fans of the show Lie to Me): http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_24533526/face-it-tsa...

While the data behind using FACS to spot emotions (EMFACS) is solid (https://books.google.com/books?id=W_npWdrHGFcC&pg=PA47&lpg=P...), the record on using it to spot lies, terrorists, or otherwise discovering the intentions behind those emotions is not good (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/gao-...).

One huge issue is that a scared terrorist looks the same as a scared person singled out for screening, and there are many times more of the latter. This is a specific issue Ekman brings up in his work when using FACS for lie detection. FACS is much better in finding out how someone is feeling rather than what they're thinking. But you need to know intentions to figure out if someone is a terrorist.

technofiend2• 11 years ago

What if I'm scared I'm going to miss my flight? Or I have to go to the restroom urgently and I'm afraid all these questions will have unintended consequences? LOL. As you say no way to read intent.

u23KDd232• 11 years ago

I've observed the horrible nature of this program in person while traveling. During the practice, the TSA staff talked loudly to threaten passengers and then also made "jokes" to passengers about finding chemicals on them. Essentially they try to escalate the fear among all the passengers and then single out someone who responds the most poorly. Not to mention the fact that anyone who has protested or complained about any of these controversial programs are being targeted without any basis. Psychological warfare is being conducted on American soil against innocent Americans.

remarkEon• 11 years ago

A few months ago I was traveling from SEATAC. I always use the TSA-Pre line, where I don't have to remove my laptop from my computer bag. This particular trip, I placed my bag down like usual and my keys/cellphone in the dish and walked toward the metal detector just as the agent behind the x-ray machine picks up and throws my computer back the length of the conveyor belt and demands I remove my computer from my bag. I was shocked and strongly but firmly told her that what she did was completely inappropriate. Once through the line, as I was collecting my things, another agent came up and then started asking me bizarre questions like "how are you feeling?" "is something upsetting you?" (...of course something's upsetting me...and your underling just threw my computer!) I immediately hopped on airport wifi at my gate and wrote a detailed complaint and submitted. Never heard back. Wrote a second one. Nothing. Now I'm wondering if that whole experience was this program.

Then again, the simplest explanation would be that this was just another instance of TSA incompetence.

josefresco2• 11 years ago

Consider this counterpoint experience posted on Slashdot...

"I recall going through security at the Charlotte, NC airport once, a few years ago, and noticed TSA agents out in the queue making smalltalk with all of the passengers. "Hey, how are y'all doin' today?", "Goin' someplace warm?", "Be sure to take off that belt buckle sir.", "Were are y'all headed?", "Y'all fly much?", and so forth. At first I thought that this was a misguided effort at public relations. But then it occurred to me that those agents were probably pre-screeners looking for nervous and evasive passengers who would then be subjected to additional traditional screening. I don't know what SPOT is and have no opinion of its effectiveness. But it seems to me that chatting up passengers in order to spot potential trouble-makers is probably the single most effective part of the whole TSA process."

excitom• 11 years ago

I'd like to see some statistics that corroborate the effectiveness of this technique.

u23KDd232• 11 years ago

I've observed this as well by the TSA which is probably a good implementation. What we should be worried about however are the poor implementations and exploitations of these concepts and ideas. I'm concerned about the occurrences that probably generate misguided animosity towards people who are genuinely concerned about the safety of passengers. When you have events like what unfolded in New Orleans and LA we should wondering what motivated such actions.

otakucode3• 11 years ago

it seems to me that chatting up passengers in order to spot potential trouble-makers is probably the single most effective part of the whole TSA process

I don't understand this. I assume that its meant from an intuitive 'I feel like this would be effective' standpoint. Because as far as actual effectiveness is concerned, we know that it has stopped 0 attacks. The only way we could know it to be effective is if there were people actually trying to carry out attacks and being caught. Neither of those things are happening, though, so we really can't tell. Thus far, it's just a massive waste of resources.

Really, 9/11 guaranteed that there will never be another airline hijacking for a very, very long time. No passenger will fight with anything less than every fiber of their being to stop any hijacker now. It doesn't matter what kind of weapon you've got, the instant you stand up and say 'I'm taking over this place', you immediately have the entire crew and passengers willing to die to stop you. Before the idea of planes as weapons was tried, everyone presumed a hijacked plane would just fly to Cuba and everyone would be OK. But now that they know the possibility everyone is going to die in an intentional crash, hijackers have no chance.

technofiend2• 11 years ago

I was singled out once for carrying two laptops. I answered the same two or three questions over and over.

They had trouble understanding my work allows no personal use of laptops so if I wanted one for development or gaming I had to carry two.

I guess they thought asking the same questions repeatedly would be stressful. They haven't met my wife. :eyewaggle:

tempodox2• 11 years ago

Maybe someone should suggest the study of physiognomy to the TSA. Over a hundred yrs ago, they could already determine intellect, moral fortitude and other important parameters just by looking at a human's face and skull form. Had the term “terrorist” been invented by then, they would have doubtlessly detected that, too.

So we may just as well say, the TSA is about 100 yrs out of date. But then, not letting people board a plane because you don't like their nose or the way they scratch their head is the only hope of fighting “terror” that we have, isn't it?

creshal• 11 years ago

Had the term “terrorist” been invented by then, they would have doubtlessly detected that, too.

Craniology was capable of detecting "Jewish race", so it should probably work with a similar accuracy as the other TSA measures… /s

EC1• 11 years ago

Over a hundred yrs ago, they could already determine intellect, moral fortitude and other important parameters just by looking at a human's face and skull form.

Do you have anything more about this?

pcl• 11 years ago

The OP is making a (presumably) tongue-in-cheek reference to phrenology -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

Zigurd• 11 years ago

Reading "microexpressions" is charlatanism. The results are as vague as a Tarot card reading, for the same reasons. We've been defrauded by the purveyors of this junk. Among the places it's been debunked: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2013/06/25/emotio...

mg1982• 11 years ago

I'm just going to say this out loud since no-else has: A BILLLLLION DOLLARS! A billion! One. BILLION. Dollars.

Aghhhh!

I'd have done it for half that.

chrismcb• 11 years ago

That is cheap compared to the cost if the scrapped rapidscan systems

otakucode3• 11 years ago

This should be a very easy test. In the years since these 3,000 behavioral observation officers have been hired, how many people have they identified as dangerous?

If this number is greater than 0, the number of actual terrorists which existed to be stopped, then we know that it is an ineffective program. If they did identify 0 people, then we know it probably works!

It's like school counselors looking for 'warning signs' of school shooters. If this is a reliable tactic, the counselors would identify 2 or 3 people every several years across the entire US. As it is, they identify dozens of students at every single school every single year - proving that they are monumentally incompetent.

davidf18• 11 years ago

I have flown to Israel many times from different countries and I can tell you that the Israelis, who are probably the world's authorities on airport security, do have conversations with passengers where they ask questions and look for the passenger's affect when responding. The questions and brief discussions are not direct, eg, "How are you feeling?" but indirect such as conversations about NYC where I live or Israeli tourist spots, etc.

$1B TSA Behavioral Screening Program Slammed as Ineffective Junk Science

Related Stories